"we can attempt to understand the present, for the future will inevitably retain compelling aspects of what now exists. And the present, in turn, is profoundly a product of the past"
Today Gordon Brown promised that Britain "cannot, must not and will not walk away" from Afghanistan, but this is an unusual war in many respects, and if Britain is willing to continue its missions in Afghanistan, then it must be prepared to complete any predefined objectives. In short, Britain, America and her NATO allies must be prepared to undertake what effectively is nation building.
This is as difficult as it sounds and the process will make the situation in Iraq look like a walk in the park on a mild summer's day. In any context the comparison with Iraq is a false one; since all the aspects required for completing nation building were already in situation in Iraq, whereas none are existent in Afghanistan.
As Francis Fukuyama describes in his book State Building;
"... [we] talk about the problem of 'getting to Denmark', where 'Denmark' stands generically for a developed country with well-functioning state institution. We know what 'Denmark' looks like, and something about how the actual Denmark came to be historically. But to what extent is that knowledge transferable to countries as far away historically and culturally from Denmark as Somalia or Moldova?"
In Afghanistan there is no history of a 'civil society', the rule of law that transcends tribal divisions, trusted institutions and any process that represents democratic continuity. It will take decades, if not centuries, for these institutions to mature and incorporated in to the concept of a "democratic Afghanistan".
Britain was a liberal country, in many aspects, centuries before it ever became a liberal democracy...
Britain and America must learn from the mistakes of leaving a power vacuum in Afghanistan as was allowed to happen after the Soviet Union's withdrawal in 1989, in which the Taliban were the only viable form of governance.
Another month and another indicator that the British economy is slowly lurching out of recession. The Halifax have announced that house prices in Britain have risen by 1.2% in October and which represents a slight fall of 1.5% compared to a year ago, which is the smallest decline in the year on year statistic since this credit crunch began.
This, as a simplistic statistic, can appear to be encouraging news for the economy, demand increasing which implies that more people have renewed faith in their economic futures. Also the access to credit is becoming more freely available, so good news all around...
Not quite. Beneath the encouraging facade of these statistic, lays an uncomfortable truth; the rise in house prices might indicate economic recovery, but they almost definitely indicate a huge shortage of new houses. This short fall distorts the simple concepts of supply and demand, in which demand is relativity constant and supply is so small that drives up the price to the extent that it matches demand.
Until recently, people in the UK needed relatively easy access to credit in order to purchase a modest property, this can be seen in the incredibly dangerous mortgage deals that allowed people to borrow at six times their own salary. The result was this only masked the housing short fall, but did not attempt to solve the underlying issues.
Furthermore, the low interest rates that mortgage holders are currently enjoying are further masking this most serious of problems. The Government has lacked a coherent housing policy since 1997, arguments between government and councils are common place, but it is the government that should display effective leadership on the matter.
If the government does not address the serious issues in their housing policy Britain is doomed to repeat the simple mistakes of the past...
As the dark spectre of another set of postal strikes looms large over the nation, it seems increasingly unlikely that a resolution will be soon announced. With both sides seemingly more concerned about posturing and public opinion, than resolution, a winter of discontent lurches ever closer to people and businesses that rely on the monopoly that the Royal Mail provides.
Amidst this maelstrom is a passive government, refusing to publicly denounce, support or offer any context for reconciliation to either party; with Lord Mandelson seemingly more intent to disrupt any immediate possible solution. It is unsurprising that the government is taking such a publicly quiet stance, since how can it possibly remain objective when it is constantly pursuing potential suitors to privatize the Royal Mail.
However, it was refreshing to hear Clive James' pragmatic appraisal of the dispute, in which he argues that British management and workers must find a 'happy' equilibrium in which both sides have equal involvement in a successful company. He states,
"A labour-management concord was the solution in Germany and Japan and one way or another it will be the solution here - it's just slow to come. Making the slowness slower, alas, is the still lingering twin effect - weaker now but not dead yet - of a conservatism that thinks the workers are out to wreck the nation and a radicalism that would like to see the nation wrecked, as if some kind of purity could ensue if people no longer had to work for a living."
With representatives of the workers on the board of a company, such as the Royal Mail, the workers would feel as if they had a stake in modernization and the management would have a more efficient and stable company.
It is when management and workers converse as equal partners, rather than historic rivals, that synergy can potentially produced.
In a period where the Government is being attacked for the majority of its new policy initiatives, from almost every angle, it is surprising that it opted to pursue a political risky strategy by sacking Professor David Nutt from his role as Head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD).
This strategy of sacking the Chairman of a quasi-independent public Council is baffling at best and at worst creates a unwelcoming precedence in which the Government is willing to ignore (and often contradict) scientific advise in favour of winning support from tabloid media outlets. There are three potential political reasons for Home Secretary Alan Johnson to sack Prof David Nutt:
Alan Johnson believes that Prof David Nutt's claim concerning cannabis, ecstasy and LSD is contradicting Government advice, and therefore his position became untenable.
The Government wished to create a smoke screen for the criticism it faces concerning the reduction in funding for the Armed Forces and the TA. Funding for the Armed Forces and the TA is becoming a central plank for both the Labour and Conservative Party in the run up to the forthcoming election. Any perceived weakening in either party's commitment to the troops will be political suicide.
The Government wanted to appear to be tough on drugs to appeal to the Daily Mail, Daily Express and the tabloids.
The decision whether the reclassification of these drugs is correct is a matter for debate. But the main issue to arise from Prof David Nutt's sacking, is the Government's willingness to ignore independent, scientific and evidence based reasoning in favour of pursuing an ideological or political decisions designed to carry favour with current columnists and editors of newspapers.
The purpose of a quasi-independent body, such as, the ACMD is to advise the Government on their areas of expertise, not to becoming a whipping boy of the ministers to demonstrate how tough the Government can be on controversial issues.
As Margaret Thatcher famously said "Advisers advise and ministers decide".
What a difference a day makes in politics. Yesterday there was an air of "mission accomplished" surrounding the release of Stephen Farrell, an Anglo-Irish journalist with the New York Times, from four days of captivity with the Taliban. However, the battle for Mr Farrell's release came at a price, four fatalities including a British Serviceman and an Afghan journalist. The Prime Minister was quick to release a statement, full of platitudes and stoic references claiming, in essence, that no one will be left behind. No one.
However, as more facts emerge today from Mr Farrell's ordeal, including his blog account, the clear delineation of Mr Brown's statement begin to blur. The successful attempt to free Mr Farrell was, in fact, the second attempt and the decision to send in the troops was made by the Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth. A purely political decision...
In addition, there is growing unrest in Afghanistan concerning the conduct of the British troops who attempted the rescue, there are many claims of racism and inconsideration of the Afghan people. It has also emerged that the local Afghan authorities were in the process of negotiations with the Taliban, and are increasing frustrated with NATO's brash tactics.
It is obvious that both David Miliband and Bob Ainsworth driving motivation was the safe release of Mr Farrell. But also a defining factor that led them into ordering a fatal rescue attempt was that if Mr Farrell had appeared in the future, still a captive, in a orange jumpsuit surrounded by the Taliban or Al Qaeda. They knew that the war would be a lot harder to justify to a impatient public...
There is a familiar pattern emerging here - when there is a possibility to bask in the reflected glory of a sports team, Gordon Brown is incredibly quick to respond, however, any criticism that requires an immediate response there is tumble weed rolling outside 10 Downing Street.
In many respects the housing crisis was a significant contributing factor in the recent recession; the over inflated price of property was considered an investment rather than a short fall in supply, which led to many people feeling pressured into burdening themselves with an unrealistic mortgage just to get on the property ladder before it was to late. It is well documented that these toxic debts on both sides of the Atlantic were partly responsible for the near collapse of the financial sector.
It has seemed for many years that the simple concepts of supply and demand did not apply within the housing sector, with property being considered a guaranteed investment that would return 5% a year. But as population increases at a higher rate than housing capacity, the property price will inevitably rise and demand will consequently outstrip supply. It seems a logical argument, it obeys all the economic laws by which our economy is determined, so why has it been ignored for so long...
It is due in part to the trust Margaret Thatcher placed in the marketplace to reach equilibrium and to the culture of home ownership that she encouraged. This has been further reinforced by the considerable amount of vacuous property programmes on TV that facilitated the myth that property prices do not obey the laws of economics. It is these programmes that would have claimed that Newton's Apple did not obey the laws of physics and therefore was of higher value than other fruit.
Therefore, it is unforgivable that governments, both Conservative and Labour, has consistently ignored demands for more new homes to be built. Also, there is a perverse sense of relief that is expressed by many that house prices are increasing again after the credit crunch.
It is an economic imperative that the government begin to increase the stock of new build houses in the UK if another recession is to be avoided in the near future. The 2,000 new council houses announced today is a small start, but more needs to be done to encourage private and public investors in the housing market.
Whether it is the frivolity of summer still lingering in the air or a concerted effort, but David Cameron's first major speech after the summer recess was insightful in a number of respects. The speech itself was not incendiary or that demanding of its audience; in fact it was a pretty unspectacular opening gambit to the new parliamentary session. However, the speech shows a new target audience and tactic for the Leader of the Opposition.
The speech centred around the necessity for spending cuts and fiscal prudence, but rather than discuss any number of viable and significant spending efficiencies, Mr Cameron chose to target the 'bourgeois' MPs (it is ironic given it is only weeks after Alan Duncan's Oliver Twist impersonation) with a tabloid centric attack. Giving the newspapers an easy headline and easier target is nothing new for any politician, but the time and the style of the new attack is significant.
It signals David Cameron's attempt to court the tabloid audience in the election year with a performance that would not have been out of place at last month's Edinburgh's Fringe Festival. It is also significant that Mr Cameron has chosen a policy area that is the responsibility of the House of Commons instead of a government policy, in this respect David Cameron should share in some of the criticism that he has apportion.
The tabloid audience is not the usual target of the Conservative Party, most Tories would rather keep them at arms length, but political will is determined by political necessity and in election year every voter counts. It will be interesting to see if David Cameron pursues the tabloids with as much vigour as Tony Blair did.
On the positive side, the newly announced Conservative plan would shave a massive 0.002% off the national debt.
As the party political conference seasons creaks into life and party faithful get one last jolly before winter, it is important to review the summer and the issues that will no doubt dominate the news agenda until the end of September.
Labour – The Labour Party, and more specifically Gordon Brown, could not wait for the Parliamentary recess at the beginning of July. At the end of the last parliamentary session the Prime Minister and the whole of the Labour Party were close to cracking; Mr Brown must have been hoping that the magical powers of the summer time would heal some very deep and self inflicted wounds.
Instead the recess has reinforced the popular perception of the stricken Prime Minister, that of a weak leader that reacts only when constantly pursued and too often is seen to be behind the events instead of ahead of them. The failure of Mr Brown to envisage the public furore concern the release of Abdulbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, is more the rule than the exception. Heavy is the head that wears the crown.
The only event which may have given the Prime Minister a wry smile was seeing Hazel Blears’ car vandalised. It might only be a small victory, but a victory nevertheless.
Conservative – A summer of missed opportunities has plagued the Conservative Party. Just as the Labour Party were dominating the headlines for all the wrong reasons, the Tories would march straight into the spotlight of public scrutiny with a series of incredibly ill judged gaffes.
David Cameron has worked hard to altered the public image of the Conservative Party; gone is the party divide over Europe, gone is the idea that the NHS is too big and needs to stripped back and gone is the public perception of wealth businessmen out of touch with reality. No, not really, Mr Cameron just hid them all along.
However, David Cameron, unlike the Prime Minister, reacted quickly and affirmatively to reassure the public that these MPs and MEPs are just mavericks and in no way representative of the Conservative Party. It is comforting to know that the party that is likely to be asked to form the next government is a party of mavericks and loose cannons.
Liberal Democrats – If the summer was a series of missed opportunities for the Conservative party, it was a summer of increasing toil for the Lib Dems. As much as Nick Clegg tried, the media coverage was sparse and inconsequential mainly due to the main party’s domination of the airwaves.
If the Lib Dems are to capitalise on the gains made due to the Credit Crunch, Nick Clegg must handover more of the limelight to Vince Cable and attack the apparent weaknesses of any future incarnation of the FSA. With both other main parties lacking the public’s support over economic matters, the Lib Dems could make highly significant inroads.
SNP – Whether through design or default, the SNP have dominated not just the local and national debate, but have demanded a fair portion of international attention over the summer. Regardless of the rights or the wrongs of the compassionate release of Abdulbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the SNP have attempted to assert the concept of an independent Scotland with the claims that Scotland is ready to make the “tough” choices.
It is still unclear whether the decision of Kenny MacAskill was political or independent; what is clear is the success of the SNP to keep the debate concerning Scottish independence firmly in the public gaze.
Traditionally the summer news correspondents have been typified by the cliché of “silly season”, cyclical news reports to maintain readership have been commonplace for many years. The news daily’s reproducing gossip and rumour as fact has been a staple of media output in the summer months since the mass media was created.
There is no better example than last bastions of truth and exposition the Daily Mail and Daily Express as the purveyors of this silly season. These papers have single-handedly keep the public “informed” about the latest conspiracies concern the death of Lady Diana for nearly twelve years. Using trite stories, with sensational headlines and the overuse of the phrases such as “a source close to…” or “an insider revealed…”, the summer was a time of lazy journalism and even lazier readers.
However, this year has been slightly unusual in many respects; there has been a feast of news issues that have dominated the media over the summer - Afghanistan, Libya, the NHS, MPs living in poverty, the FSA and possibly the end of the recession. The media has avoided the temptation of heavily relying upon emotional stories to sell papers; instead they have preferred to report the news – now that really is a silly season.
The quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation (or for simplicity sake the Quango) has again become the political focus of a party in opposition. These organisations have always been an easy target due to their size, power and budgets; according to The Guardian there are 790 Quangos with a combined budget in excess of £34 billion.
Quangos are a simple target for the opposition as proven by Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and now David Cameron. Since the Quango, like the Civil Service, must remain politically impartial it becomes very simply to score political points off these organisations. It is similar to winning a debating competition where one participant has gagged and chained their opponent.
Furthermore, there has been little in the way of inspiration leadership from David Cameron, recently it almost seems that he is playing 'leader-of-the-opposition by numbers';
first attack the Governments public spending plans,
then mention how the opposition will increase efficiency of the public sector therefore saving the tax payer billions,
and finally attack Quangos
But like all leaders of the opposition before him, Mr Cameron has yet to outline what will replace these megaliths. It is very easy for Mr Cameron to comment that he will reduce the number of Quangos, but these institutions were created for a reason and currently do serve a purpose. So any organisation that replaces these Quangos will potentially have similar budgets and be similarly accountable.
Admittedly there needs to be reform of the system of Quangos, in terms of accountability and transparency, but to return them to their original government department would create a similar megalith just under a different guise and in a different place.
The result would be the next leader of the opposition would attack the size of the bureaucracy and government. Now that is a vicious circle...
If a week is a long time in politics, then a month must be akin to an epoch. On June 3rd a draft timetable was being constructed by rebel Labour MPs to usurp Gordon Brown from his position as Prime Minister. A combination of dire predictions concerning EU and local elections results, combined with the lack of leadership shown over MPs' expenses, led most political commentators to agreed that Mr Brown had one reshuffle to save his career.
How swiftly the press focus can be distracted by a new speaker and the promise of "serious reform", to the extent that all that remains in the public consciousness is bitter taste and a significant distrust of all politicians.
However, the National Assembly of Wales has quickly learnt the lessons from its Westminster colleague and produced a list of proposals that will potentially negate a similar scandal. These proposals include:
Assembly Members (AM) to rent not buy second homes
Second homes for 25 instead of 51 out of the 60 AMs
Receipt for every claim
£30.65 overnight (food) allowance scrapped
No employment of AMs' family members in future
No more claims for furniture or fittings on second homes
Independent valuation of office rent payments by AMs to political parties
AMs' pay linked to average earnings not MPs' salaries
Whether these proposals have been developed with a spirit of competition between two competing legislatures or whether it is a genuine attempt by the National Assembly to demonstrate that there is 'clear blue water' (to borrow a phrase) between London and Cardiff, does not matter.
What matters is that a new standard in public service can be discovered by Parliament from the regions; and hopefully a new trust can be developed between the public and their elected representatives.
This Westminster saga might feel like the Big Brother series from hell, thankfully without Davina McCall, but the MPs' expenses scandal is still rumbling on. On July 1st 2009, MPs will be forced to reveal all their various other "interests", this means that any MP with a second (and in many cases third and fourth) job must openly publicize their incomes and hours worked away from Parliament.
Apparently this is to create an atmosphere of transparency and openness in Parliament. However the only logical consequence is the exposing of more revelations concerning MPs lack of dedication to their constituency.
For instance, sixteen of the twenty-two frontbench Conservative MPs have second jobs; these range from non executive directorships at big financial institutions, such as Oliver Letwin at NM Rothschild, to writing newspaper columns like William Hague. In total the Shadow Cabinet consists of twenty-six members who currently hold one hundred and fifteen directorships (yes that is right: 115) between them.
Obviously is not just confined to the Tory Frontbench, it is endemic across all parties, but as an example it illustrates the point perfectly.
How can this beneficial to the country and their constituency? As a shadow cabinet their main purpose is to scrutinize the policy and actions of the incumbent government, rather than feathering their own nests. There have been many occasions that the current Tory Frontbench have failed to hold the government to account recently, and it has fallen to the Lib Dems and the press to expose government policy.
Christopher Kelly is currently investigating all aspects of MPs' expenses and outside interests, as part of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Hopefully, this will draw the only logical conclusion possible; that it is a conflict of interests for a current Member of Parliament to hold any permanent position outside Westminster. Furthermore, if any MPs wish to continue working in the private sector, then they would be forced to step down as an MP.
There are some obvious comparisons between the House of Commons and Big Brother, but at least in Big Brother it is possible to vote out certain housemates. However, it is doubtful that many MPs would be shown their "best bits"...
John Bercow, the new Speaker in the House of Commons, chaired his first Prime Minister's Questions earlier today with a quiet assertiveness that was almost refreshing to witness. With a mixture of casual authority and stern consistency, Mr Bercow seemed to resemble the new Headteacher of Grange Hill, rather than a traditional Speaker of the House of Commons.
As refreshing as Mr Bercow's performance was, the election of a new Speaker will only paper over the cracks in the Parliamentary system, as opposed to the reform of political structures needed. MPs now believe themselves to be secure in their position now that they have replaced the sacrificial lamb of Michael Martin, and lost some of the dead weight MPs, through the expenses scandal.
It is obvious that Parliament flinches at the mention of reform, therefore this window dressing allows MPs to carry on their normal routines almost unhindered. But this culture of the Westminster Village, which has developed from 1688, is irrelevant in the modern context of society. Outdated and outmoded, Parliament seems almost oblivious to lack of relevance to the electorate.
The traditions which MPs cling to, such as dragging the Speaker to his position, clearly alienate the majority of the population who do not understand the significance of these little "in jokes".
The new Speaker has promised a lot of minor reforms, tinkering around the edges if you will, but will all these minor changes result in any significant difference? It is doubtful.
Today, the House of Commons elects its new Speaker. With a short list of ten candidates Parliament hopes that a new Speaker and a summer recess will placate the public's demand for true reform; or better still most people forget the expenses debacle.
Rather than this being an auspicious event, ushering in a new order and a new style of politics, this election signifies a victory for the status quo. The list of candidates offer little in the way of reformers and will be decided by party feuds or allegiances, an old style of politics that has cursed Westminster for a considerable time.
In the opening rounds the Conservative Party will vote to stop John Bercow assuming the role, probably by voting for the ex-Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett. Conversely, the Labour Party will vote for John Bercow to stop Margaret Beckett winning. The person most likely to benefit from this playgroundesque voting will be Sir George Young.
In a time when Parliament is deemed to be out of touch with the disenfranchised electorate, a straight forward debate and election should be held; this needs to be transparent and above party bickering.
For the public to reconnect to Parliament and in particular the politicians that reside within there must be an honest review of reforms required. Not a sham of a Speaker's election in which the new Speaker will be chosen through party loyalty and personality, rather than commitment to reform and real change.
It is disappointing that Parliament is wasting chance after chance to prove it can understand what the public is demanding.
Last week Gordon Brown promised the Labour Party and the country a new candour in British governance, with the promises of openness and transparency, Mr Brown offered the keys of Parliament back to the electorate.
However, a week is apparently a long time in politics; with the lessons of last week having been quickly forgotten or ignored. Little more than ten days ago Gordon Brown promised the PLP a new start, in which he would consult, learn and listen with the Labour Party. Gone are the days, the PLP was told, of power politics, bullying and riding roughshod of MPs' concerns; this was a brave new world.
Instead, with the announcement of a private inquest into the war in Iraq and the two rail tragedies, the lessons seem little more than mythology. With Gordon Brown more secure in his position as Prime Minister, the veil of secrecy has been re-established and normal service has been resumed.
There is no requirement to have any of these inquests in private, in fact there is a requirement, no a necessity, that these are firmly under public scrutiny. All the private status allows is that the government can control the release of information and therefore control the news agenda to best suit there advantage. Without the luxury of owning or controlling the press, a private inquest is the next best thing; releasing or leaking information controls the news agenda.
It is almost as if Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell are in control of the Prime Minister's Press Office again...
Now that the expenses scandal is drawing to a close, much to Parliament's relief, there has been an air of nostalgic reflection amongst some sections in the media. The Daily Telegraph, for instance, has drawn up a "Top Ten" list of MPs' excuses and reaction to the scandal:
3. Sir John Butterfill simply didn't have time to dig out the figures on how much his servants' quarters cost the taxpayer before his big Newsnight interview.
4. Speaker Michael Martin berates the hapless Kate Hoey in front of the entire Commons, and of course, the nation...
5. ... which turned out to be less than wise when Mr Martin was forced to resign a few days later.
6. Salford's pocket rocket Hazel Blears brandishes THAT cheque in a desperate bid for survival.
10. Presenters of Radio 4's Today Programme are expected to keep a straight face even in the face of the most ridiculous duck-related stories. Pity nobody told Evan Davis.
The Telegraph missed Kitty Ussher's misjudged resignation in the belief that the expenses released yesterday would reveal her "flipping" first homes to avoid Capital Gains Tax. Sadly, the "redacted" expenses claims showed no incriminating information.
The MPs' expenses debate still rumbles on. Today the Parliament published the "full" list of expenses of all MPs in Parliament.
Notable by the vast swathes of blacked out information on the expenses claim form, the list reveals nothing that the public did not expect. Even the CIA would be embarrassed by the amount of content obscured from the public gaze.
This tactless editing will only infuriate the general public more, since all party leaders promised a more open and transparent system. The result is a perception that the MPs are still obscuring and blurring the lines of accountability for their own expenses. The declaration at the end of each of these expenses has now become obsolete:
"I confirm that the payments requested are in respect of costs incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of my parliamentary duties."
It is a shame that, at their lowest ebb, Parliament still attempts to protect itself from the scrutiny of the public and the media; instead it hides behind black squares and rectangles in the vain hope that it can collectively salvage some dignity.
This was the perfect opportunity for MPs to show that they had learnt the lessons of the past few months, but the public perception of ivory towers and gentleman's clubs still remains.
It is now obvious why Parliament wished for this list to be published in its entirety in July 2009. With Parliament in recess and most of the top political journalists on holiday, July would have provided a perfect opportunity to brush the scandal firmly under the carpet.
They would have got away with it, if it had not been for those pesky kids at the Telegraph...
There has been much discussion in the British media since Thursday concerning the Presidential elections in Iran between Mir Hossein Mousavi and the incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. With the increase in media coverage, there has also been an increase in the credence of the concept of a "Green Revolution", similar scope to the "Velvet Revolution" in Czechoslovakia.
It is too easy to let imaginations run wild at times of civil unrest; with the most pleasing or extreme results being offered up as almost certain outcomes. However, in Iran there is a chance for significant change, not the change George W. Bush would want; a pro-western government that is willing to sell the world its cheap oil. But change that the Iranian people would want; more civil liberties, more freedoms and most importantly, economic development.
These changes could potential occur in one of the most pivotal countries in the world.
Therefore it is curious that there have been calls from certain sections of the British media that there has been too much coverage of a foreign election. This reaction is surprising considering the significance of Iran on a regional and global scale. There are many reasons why a change in the style of government, by Iranian people, is significant to everyone in the world and not just on a local humanitarian level. Here are just a few:
Iran borders Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Turkey. Any civil unrest that threatens the delicate balance in Iran could force a mass wave of refugees across any one of these borders which in turn could destabilise the whole region.
Iran is the second largest oil producer in OPEC and has significant reserves of natural gas. Any 'shock' to global oil supply can have significant impact upon a very fragile world economy.
The current Iranian regime has significant associations with a large variety of terrorist organizations across the Middle East region.
Iran in the near future will have an online nuclear facility. Even though this would no produce weapons grade nuclear material, it is a significant step in a dangerous direction.
There are a plethora of reasons why Iranian stability is vital to Britain, but to ignore it shows an alarming level of insularity. Whether some sections of the British media agree with it or not, every country's future is deeply intertwined with global stability and peace.
Michael Portillo appeared on the BBC programme 'This Week' last night and blamed the "daft electoral system" for the BNP gaining two seats at the EU Parliament; he then stated that this situation would never occur with the more sensible "first-past-the-post" system.
This is true, the BNP would never have won any seats in an election with the current Westminster system, but what he fails to understand is that it is this very same dismissive attitude concerning people's voting preferences that caused the situation in the first place. It seems that Mr Portillo does not wish to have a truly representative Parliament, rather a Parliament in which the working class concerns are ignored and marginalised.
The BNP should be revealed for what they really are, not a democratically elected party, but a fascist and racist grouping that only wish to return Britain to the dark ages in the name of ethnic purity. People like Mr Portillo, a politician of many years, should want to understand why nearly a million people voted for the BNP.
Maybe it is because these working class voters were never his core electorate, or it is easier to ignore them, but Mr Portillo is walking a fine line by ignoring the issues that surround this unprecedented event. Or maybe Mr Portillo would prefer a oligarchy, in which the power resides with the elite and the working classes do not have the vote, since he dislikes any form of representative Parliament.
Education and enfranchisement of these voters is needed, rather than the arrogance to ignore them.
There has been much discussion concerning what reforms of Parliament and expenses will be introduced, if any at all. Here are a few ideas that could potentially spark a debate:-
Expenses
There is consensus that MPs must be adequately remunerated for the level of responsibility that is assumed. Here are a few thoughts on expenses reform:
Every MP has a "grace and favour" 2 bedroom residence that is centrally located within easy distance of Westminster. This will be minimally furnished - no moats, no duck ponds and no mock Tudor beams. There will be no rent, but no expenses can be charged for accommodation. This would have the advantages that if maintenance needs to be carried out it can be done via a central contract and therefore, cheaper.
The only expense that would be acceptable is travel to and from the constituency. The cost of this is paid at a standard class train or plane fare, if they wish to upgrade, then it is at their own expense.
The MPs wage will increase to £75,000. Any future cost of living increase will be decided upon by an independent panel which will not be responsible to Parliament.
No MP, whilst in office, can have any other form of employment that might compromise their role as a MP. Such examples can be found here. MPs are in Parliament to represent their constituents, not their interests.
Staff (Parliamentary and constituency based) to be paid centrally.
Tax-payers contributions to MPs' pension funds to be significantly reduced.
Parliamentary Reforms
Britain has probably the most archaic Parliamentary system in the western world, built on convention and precedence. Affectionately known as a elected dictatorship, the winning party in a general election commands the executive and the legislature, George W. Bush would have started Armageddon with this power. The second House is weak and ineffectual, filled with representatives of the current government. The situation demands reform:
Reduce the number of MPs in the House of Commons, and have them elected via a form of proportional representation.
Make the House of Lords wholly elected. This could be done via a number of different routes, maybe a more representative federal system. Furthermore, rebuke the Parliament Act which allows the House of Commons to completely overrule the Lords, if it does not endorse a Bill.
MPs must have substantial links to the constituency that they represent. This will reduce the MP becoming the spokesman for the party in the constituency, rather than representing the constituency at a national level.
Devolve power away from Westminster to a local level within certain parameters.
Reduce the power of the party whip. This is probably wishful of all the points.
By instigating these reforms, Britain would become a more democratic country, with more people enfranchised. This is a true bicameral system that would build solutions on consensus and avoid landslides that allowed Britain to slip into war with Iraq.
There was a shocking revelation announced by the Conservative Health Spokesman Andrew Lansley on the Today programme, earlier today. Not that the Tories would plan to cut funding to "vital" areas in the NHS by 10%, even though this is quite shocking, but the revelation was that the Tories actually announced a concrete policy.
Sadly not, backtracking faster than Usain Bolt in a 100m sprint, the Conservatives said this was not a policy announcement, but a statement of Labour Party policy past 2011. It is approaching summer and the opening of the silly season, but this has to be one of the strangest exchanges of any Parliament.
First Andrew Lansley claims it was Tory Party policy
Then Gordon Brown attacks the Tories for destroying the NHS
David Cameron retorts by claiming it is actually Labour Party policy
Everyone starts pointing fingers claiming it is each others policy
And Nick Clegg changes the subject completely
That is democracy in action...
However, it is easy for the public to believe that it could be both a Labour policy and a Tory policy; since neither party has clearly stated any official economic policies or public spending projections for the next five years. This policy could well be the policy of both parties, but with the public still reeling from the MPs' expenses scandal neither Gordon Brown nor David Cameron wish to tell the public how bad things are going to be.
It is going to be a fun summer; playing policy hot potato...
Today witnessed a wholly predictable speech by Gordon Brown on political reform, in which he stated:
"In the midst of all the rancour and recrimination, let us seize the moment to lift our politics to a higher standard."
This speech had more in common with Dead Poets Society than a serious attempt reform the electoral system in Britain. Although it will be a long time before his fellow Labour MPs will stand up in support of their "Captain! My Captain!"
Excuse the cynicism, but this has all been said before. It is a pantomime performance that every time a government is in danger of losing a forthcoming election, it changes its rhetoric to a populist tagline. How many times in the past eighteen years has a Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition promised to "clean up" British politics. If they were true to their word perhaps now there would be a workable system in place.
However, amongst the predictable rhetoric from both sides of the House, there is potential for significant and actual change in the British political culture, which could usher in a new dawn of transparency and accountability. There also needs to an important discussion concerning the disenfranchisement of great swathes of the electorate.
Soon it will be time to judge Gordon Brown on his actions, not just his words... Carpe Diem, indeed.
David Cameron appeared in the Welsh National Assembly yesterday, with all the pomp and circumstance of Rocky Balboa standing aloft the steps of Philadelphia City Hall. Whether it was the Labour vote staying home or the electorate genuinely voting Conservative, the shock waves of this result will resonate for sometime.
This, more than the BNP winning two MEP seats in the North of England, was the most surprising result of Sunday's EU election. Wales has been a stronghold for the Labour Party for nearly a hundred years, even during the dark days of 1979 and 1983, there was always a light on in Wales for the Labour Party. If Gordon Brown and the Labour Party can lose to the Conservatives in Wales then no constituency and MP is safe.
According to Dante there are seven deadly sins; Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Envy, Pride, Lust and Labour losing Wales to the Conservative Party. It is probably a natural progression, the Labour Party had committed the six other deadly sins during the MPs' expenses scandal, so losing Wales was the complete set.
Now that the dust is settling after a hectic 24 hours in Westminster, the shape of the new cabinet is clear. Rather than a brave new world in which the Prime Minister forges ahead as a strong leader, the country has been left wondering what has changed.
There are two obvious reasons for the new (old) look cabinet:
Gordon Brown has either embraced the status quo, keeping most of the ministers in their original departments, for the sake of consistency.
Or he has no choice left. The ministers have wrestled the power from the Prime Minister and are now calling the shots.
Furthermore, Mr Brown has attempted to gloss over is impudence by attempting to distract everyone with some left field appointments; Lord Sugar (Lord help us more like) and Glenys Kinnock (this appointment no one saw coming). These "celebrity" appointments have shown that the talent in the current PLP either do not want to work in Gordon Brown's Government or simply just does not exist.
Hopefully the Prime Minister avoided the temptation to call Susan Boyle and Davina McCall...
When Tony Blair posed the almost rhetorical question to himself of what his government's major priorities were, he answered himself with the clear mantra of "education, education, education." This soundbite was perfect for the time, it simply laid out the future government's plan that was accessible and easily understood by all. It quickly became a yardstick by which the New Labour government could be measured against and beaten by if they failed.
Thirteen years on, Gordon Brown needs a similar tactic, if he is to survive the dire local and EU election results. There is no yardstick currently available to most of the general public to measure his performance by; only the prophetic cries of "we are fixing the economy." The issue with this as a measuring instrument is twofold;
If public are to believe Mr Brown, that the UK could not effect the recession since it was a global phenomenon, how is the general public supposed to know that the relief packages designed by the government are alleviating the problem. It could just be an upturn in world markets.
Secondly, many people believe that Gordon Brown's policy of deregulation for the banks, in many ways exacerbated the issue in the first place.
Therefore, Gordon Brown needs to hang his hat on another policy, one which the public can see genuine results on in the short term. The expenses scandal that might of nearly ended his tenure as Prime Minister, has surprisingly presented him with a golden opportunity to show strong leadership.
By setting out a clear bill of reforms for the House of Commons, MPs' expenses and the House of Lords, Gordon Brown will then be able to be judged on a definable set of criteria.
However, it is doubtful that he will use the mantra of "reform, reform, reform."
According to Paul Flynn: "There is now a wide coalition of MPs from all wings of the Labour Party who are sadly convinced that a change of leadership in now unavoidable. It is hoped that Gordon will accept the will of the PLP and agree to a swift orderly exit."
But Mr Flynn thinks that Gordon Brown has been unfairly maligned by the Press and the public for the expenses scandal. However, what Paul Flynn fails to recognise or completely ignores is that Gordon Brown is perceived to have no mandate from the general electorate. In the public eyes Gordon Brown usurped the democratically elected Prime Minister with no legitimacy; it was a succession rather than a justification of the democratic process.
If Gordon Brown had gone to the public in October 2007 and called for a general election, he would currently be in a better situation with a justifiable mandate to govern. However, there is no mandate from the public, many people are feeling disenfranchised by the whole process. The Government have pursued policies that detach themselves from the electorate; ID cards etc. This is the main reason the public and press have turned on Gordon Brown, in a Parliament where there seems little in the way of accountability the expenses scandal was the straw that broke the camels back.
If the Labour Party choose to follow a path of electing another leader without the promise of a general election shortly afterwards, the feelings of disenfranchisement amongst the public will continually increase.
With all the eloquence of a Lloyd George or a Woodrow Wilson; Barack Obama addressed the Great Hall of Cairo University in an attempt to forge a 'new beginning' for American-Muslim relations. In a speech reminiscent of another great American President, John F. Kennedy's captivating speech to the American University in 1963, President Obama broke with his predecessors naive assumptions of 'us' and 'them' to create a potential glimmer of hope.
However, considering President Obama's nuanced approach during his speech, many media outlets have dubbed the speech as 'America and the Muslim world'. During the speech Barack Obama was at pains to differentiate the different Muslim groups from one another, and talked at great length about respecting and treating each group differently. But the main news rooms, CNN, Fox and BBC, have ignored this important nuance.
Whether the speech has been truncated in to digestible soundbites for the perceived ease of their audience or the journalists are still trapped in the language of the previous administration, this has yet to be seen. But to ignore the finer points has done the speech and Barack Obama a great disservice.
Sadly Jeremy Bowen urged caution; stating that by giving hope for a peaceful resolution for many of the conflicts around the world, Barack Obama has set himself up to disappoint many people. But surely by stating that he recognises that a more nuanced approach is necessary, President Obama is developing good will and political capital that can potentially be used to reach compromises in certain conflicts. Something that his predecessor certainly lacked.
The Guardian has released a potential timetable for the Labour Party to replace Gordon Brown as Prime Minister:
"Here's how events could pan out, according to the rebels:
4 June: Local and European election polling day.
5 June: Results from local elections; pressure mounts on Brown.
7 June: European election results expose the full scale of the electoral defeat suffered by Brown.
9 June: The prime minister is forced from office.
10 June: Labour's ruling national executive committee would meet and a new timetable would be announced.
The rebels have told the Guardian they think, and some senior trade union officials have even suggested to them, that the trade union involvement could be cut out altogether.
The advice of the three officials has assured the rebels that their shortened schedule would be "waterproofed" against legal challenge by the prime minister.
11 June: The parliamentary Labour party would meet and nominate their chosen new leader on the Thursday
12 June: Nominations for leader close.
16 June: Leadership ballot papers are distributed.
29 June: Selection of the new leader at a special conference held by the Labour party
2 July: Brown would formally resign and the new prime minister would be installed.
8 July: First prime minister's questions for the new leader
21 July Parliament breaks for the summer recess."
It seems fanciful that this timetable could be stuck to. It also conveniently forgets the political pressure from the general public, being rightly annoyed by having another unelected Prime Minister.
I'm still undecided whether political blogging is a form of arrogance, thinking that someone (anyone) would be interested in my musings, or an essential form of expression in a liberal democracy - I'm just not sure...
Posts
